TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Transportation costs deductible for duty refund claims - Tribunal upholds Commissioner's decision</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - II Versus Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd.</h3> The Revenue's appeals were dismissed in the case involving refund claims by M/s. Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for duty paid on equalised ... Assessable value – place of removal – cost of transportation – claim of assessee that they are selling these goods at a uniform price all over India and, therefore, they are eligible for deduction towards cost of transportation from the factory to depot - Held that:- when the goods are sold at a uniform price, equalised freight charges are deductible from the normal price and no duty is chargeable on the same., department's appeals are rejected being devoid of merits. [VIP Industries (2003 - TMI - 46580 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Central Excise)] Issues: Revenue appeals against Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims based on inclusion of transportation cost in assessable value. Interpretation of 'place of removal' post amendment. Applicability of judgments in VIP Industries Ltd. and Prabhat Zarda Factory cases.Analysis:1. Refund Claims Rejection: The case involved M/s. Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd. filing refund claims for duty paid on equalised freight for different periods. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claims stating that transportation cost to depot is includable in assessable value. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeals, citing that equalised freight charges are deductible when goods are sold at a uniform price all over India, following the judgment in VIP Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise. The department appealed this decision.2. Definition of 'Place of Removal': The department argued that as per the amended provisions of Section 4, 'place of removal' includes depot or premises where goods are sold post-clearance. They contended that post-amendment, transportation cost to depot should be included. They relied on the judgment in Prabhat Zarda Factory case to support their stance. However, the Tribunal noted that in VIP Industries Ltd. case, the apex court held that transportation cost from factory to depot is not includable in assessable value if equalised freight is included in the goods' price and goods are sold at a uniform price nationwide.3. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal found the facts of the present case similar to VIP Industries Ltd. case, where equalised freight was considered in the price and goods were sold uniformly across the country. Hence, the Tribunal applied the ratio of the VIP Industries Ltd. judgment to the current case, rejecting the department's appeals. It distinguished the Prabhat Zarda Factory case based on different facts, emphasizing the uniform pricing and sales at both factory-gate and depots in the current scenario. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's order, deeming the department's appeals meritless.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
